The MPLS WG Archive[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index][Subject Index] glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt
Cool. Will fix as suggested. --Tom >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-mpls@UU.NET [mailto:owner-mpls@UU.NET] On Behalf >Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert) >Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:06 AM >To: Stefan Winter; mpls@UU.NET; iesg@ietf.org >Subject: RE: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt > > >You suggested fix makes sense to me. > >Thanks, >Bert > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Stefan Winter [mailto:mail@stefan-winter.de] >> Sent: woensdag 10 september 2003 9:57 >> To: mpls@UU.NET; iesg@ietf.org >> Subject: glitch in draft-ietf-mpls-lsr-mib-12.txt >> >> >> Hello, >> >> ( I know it is VERY short before end of last call, but I just >> came across this >> one...) >> >> the mplsXCTable contains a RowStatus column and an >AdminStatus column. >> The DESCRIPTION of its RowStatus reads, >> "When a row in this table has a row in the active(1) >> state, no objects in this row except this object >> and the mplsXCStorageType can be modified." >> Which does not make sense. As far as I know, the core purpose >> of AdminStatus >> is to have the possibility to put an XC offline without >> having to set the >> entire row to NotInService. But if one cannot modify the >> AdminStatus once the >> RowStatus is "up", this is not possible. >> If the description remains the way it is now, AdminStatus is >> mostly useless. A >> simple addition like >> "except this object, the mplsXCStorageType >> and the mplsXCAdminStatus can be modified." >> would make much more sense. >> >> Greetings, >> >> Stefan Winter >> >
|
|